The Cult and Culture of Cars

In so many ways, the automobile has taken over our lives, even beyond when we are in one. This can be seen not only in the way we design cities and states with roads and parking for cars in mind, but also in the way we think of where we live; in relation to friends and work, for example. Really the basic function of the automobile is to make travel a less onerous task. Yet it has become an extension of our selves, another symbol and, in turn, another way to judge others. It has, in such a short amount of time, come to where it seems all our cultural personalities and institutions can be expressed in terms of cars and traffic. This extends to art and entertainment certainly, but also language, societal expectations, and self esteem. The very idea of not using or having a car has become ludicrous or foolish, although I am glad to say there are people trying to counter that. We don't just move further away from our family and the places we were born, we use cars to escape from the world. By getting in and turning up the stereo, by taking a long and destination-less drive, or just by going really fast, we are trying to get away from the rest of humanity that causes us so much upset. We complain about all the other drivers...please examine the hypocrisy of that thought. We all get out on the road together and think that none of the other drivers should be there.

Thank you for examining that; it is, of course, just a symptom of the selfishness of capitalism and competition so prevalent in culture today. However, these tie so closely with traffic and the auto as to be indistinguishable. Yet we should ask ourselves the basic questions: "How does this help us?", "Is this really good for us?", and "Can we do better?" The competitive approach to driving is what inspired this post, because it seems rather than improving the way we get where we are going, cars are just another way to "beat" each other. There are "sports events" entirely devoted to and consisting of cars and trucks and things that go vroom. In everyday life there are those who try all sorts of ways to "win" in traffic. The person who dodges and weaves around others, another who shoots off to the next traffic light, and especially those who drive as though no one else is on the road. I don't believe this attitude or circumstance is intentional, that we set out to create it. However, we can and need to overcome what has happened, not just to be safer on the road, but to instigate change in other parts of our lives, which suffer from the same basic problem.

I recently heard about a book that seems to fit with this subject, which I am excited to read, called Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us) by Tom Vanderbilt.

Why Do My Peers Hate Me?

The rejection of peer pressure hurts those applying it, as well as the one(s) being pressured. Trying to get someone to do go along with the rest of the group is important for the members of the group, especially if the activity is questionable. Not participating points out the weakness of those who do engage in the behaviour. Resisting demonstrates that not everyone agrees with the group, so it is vulnerable to some other opinion. This is unacceptable to some people, as they need the comfort of others who share their opinion to feel confident. It can be seen as a matter of control: when these individuals feel that everyone is going along with the program, it is fine. The questioning of the groups' plan may be seen as an attack on the structure of the group, the cohesive dynamic which holds the group together. This is not always to do with something illicit, but this drive is more powerful the more dangerous or risky conditions are.

So we have insecurity compounded by feeling scrutinized by peers, leading to feelings of violent retribution for exposing the underlying vulnerabilities of the group. This should be overcome by confidence, with deciding from a place of certainty and integrity, as pressuring someone(s) into doing something is obviously not in the best interests of anyone. Actions of individuals and groups should come from deliberate consensus and valid arguments, not bullheaded or ill considered desires or impulses.

Actions Speak...Loud and Clear

There is an idea that has intrigued me for a long time: "what you pretend to be is what you are in the end." On the surface, it's simple: we can claim to be nice all we want, but it is our acts and choices which will determine whether or not we are nice and seen as so. I mean that even though we may think we are perceived as nice, attractive, and intelligent people and think of ourselves as nice, attractive, and intelligent-and we all want to believe that, right?-it may not be true. This is beside all the petty gossip, misunderstandings, and jealousy we all have to face from day to day, just because that is the culture. What I refer to is simply what happens as we go about our daily lives, make mistakes, talk to new individuals, and such. As we make our choices as to how we act and react, we are demonstrating whether we have those positive attributes we would like or instead have negative ones. Further, it also means that when we try to be something we are not, if one does strive to be different than before, that habit becomes the truth. On another level, though, this same idea holds true when a company or organisation does something different than what they claim. If one is supposedly helping a country with economic rebuilding and it is in actuality undermining that goal, what does it matter what is said? The results-such as people dying, pollution, and excessive debt-are what we need to pay attention to. This isn't about Utilitarianism or some overarching system of thinking and organising humanity and its actions. I am not advocating for something beyond simple truth and openness here, the scale and importance of these issues are too great for anything less. I think those two things would go a long way towards a solution for either personal or organisational problems of this nature. I understand it is always in the best interests of a group to promote the idea that the group is doing well and doing what is beneficial for everyone. So it is no surprise that most groups do just that, but it is important whether or not that claim is true both inside and outside the group.

Also it is true that many will wonder why things are so messed up now. This is a process and has been happening around us the whole time. To 'check out' as we have and allow these groups to do whatever they want because they'll tell us nice things is irresponsible. People need to stop being sold to, to stop passively accepting the messages that these companies and conglomerations are foisting on us. The constant barrage and commercial harassment of citizens is unacceptable and absurd. Our actions are definite and easily observed: we have been lazy, become complaisant, accepted the continual replacement of freedom with flashy distractions, and been complicit in the ending of democracy through murder, illegal and continual limitation of human rights, and lies. We are as much to blame as the companies who spill the oil, use slave labor, invade countries through trade agreements, or whatever else they cook up. No matter what we tell ourselves and would like to believe, that is the truth. We need to actively seek solutions instead of passively allowing these problems to continue. It is our responsibility, both in the way things have become, and also to come up with a solution. This is a good thing because if it were left up to those who are directly responsible, there would be no change. We can stop allowing it, take back the direction of our lives and country, and make the necessary changes.

Languishing in Language

There are a number of people who cannot effectively communicate, but limp along in some manner, managing to navigate life through whatever means they can. Yet they can only do so until their methods are challenged and that system breaks down. This type of person is a time-bomb, an accident waiting to happen. The trigger is an encounter with a person or a problem that requires being able to communicate in a way that they lack or who has a similar deficit. In this case, if there is no common term for discussion, information missing, or there isn't a word or concept that can be substituted, then it creates confusion and possibly anger. Instead of being able to use language and resolve a situation, the inability to communicate creates the problem, and there can be no solution until all parties are able to meet that basic need. Given this basic premise and truth, why is it that we are not better at communicating? We know that it is essential, yet this problem remains nearly unaddressed and unchanged. A simple example: if one says, "chair", those around may think: "recliner", another "rocker" and the last "wing back", they are talking about the same subject, but have different pictures in mind. When this reaches the point where they are talking about the different aspects of their "chair", there will be misunderstanding since they are actually discussing completely different objects. To overcome or prevent this is simply a matter of accuracy and knowledge. We should all be familiar with the words being used and know how to use them properly. This in addition to some practice and dedication would go a long way to solving the problem. It does require us to have some proficiency in utilizing our own language, and agreement on the basic components of the same. It is important to note that which language is less important than both the desire to communicate and the agreement on the actual words or language to use. After those points are addressed it will be much simpler going, and the basis of agreement will remain so revising is simpler in future as the framework is set.

I would like to leave you with an example from Douglas Adams' "So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish" that illustrates how specific and accurate knowledge can help, here in describing rain: "types 33 (light pricking drizzle which made the roads slippery), 39 ( heavy spotting), 47 to 51 (vertical light drizzle through to sharply slanting light to moderate drizzle freshening), 87 and 88 (two finely distinguished varieties of vertical torrential downpour), 100 (post-downpour squalling, cold), all the seastorm types between 192 and 213 at once, 123, 124, 126, 127 (mild and intermediate cold gusting, regular and syncopated cab-drumming), 11 (breezy droplets), and now his least favourite of all, 17. Rain type 17 was a dirty blatter battering against his windscreen so hard that it didn't make much odds whether he had his wipers on or off."

Food v. Sex

It is a fascinating subject, people's attitudes about normal bodily functions. For example, what if we were to have a stigma attached to eating such as we have for sex? Eating, like sex, is something that maintains the species (on an individual basis rather than as a whole), is nearly universal, and has dysfunctions attached, so I think there is an equivalence between them. If eating were considered strictly a private, intimate, and even taboo subject, what would people have to do? Would people have much the same reactions to witnessing a person eating as they do now to sexual behaviour? Imagine what it would mean.

People currently take classes on how and what to eat, nutrition classes that help them understand better what their bodies need and how to take care of them-but even the preparation of food would be risque in this scenario. Children would have to be taught that they don't put things in their mouth in public, that they shouldn't even put their finger in their mouth as it could remind someone of the act of eating. People would have isolated rooms for the act of eating. Accidentally walking into the eating room when someone was in there EATING would be embarrassing and could be made scary or traumatizing. All these things over a simple, natural activity we all engage in and require for various reasons, as well as one we should enjoy.

Yet we instead have this taboo around sex, and how has this improved our society and condition as a race? It is unfortunate that we have such a problem with the subject, even to the point of causing dysfunction.

The education children receive currently in "sex ed", if that is even the term for it anymore, as it has generally been "no-sex" education in this country. The government has gone so far as to deny funding for people who actually want to put some education about sex in there. Maybe teaching them the things they need to know, even though their parents are afraid of it is not such a bad thing. Maybe a universal minimum education should include some direction on how to take care of and understand our own bodies. We all need to know how to protect ourselves from many things, and take care of ourselves in many ways, yet this vital area is completely ignored. Many of the same people who limit sexual learning want to teach children all about guns and war, a much more perverse thing, and one which does actually have a demonstrable negative and lasting psychic impact. Just ask the millions dead and suffering from physical and psychological wounds because of it. The only way people suffer from sex is if it's forced, manipulative, or just unsafe in some way. Which is the same with all activities, even eating.